[vos-d] Flux Worlds Server Announcement

[Ken Taylor]

Well, if VRML had problems with too much hype early on that it couldn't
deliver, I kinda feel the same way about the next yet-another-social-space
promising the "metaverse." But I guess most people don't really take that
term the same way I do.

There is a lot of wisdom in what you've written. I can tend to be
idealistic -- if I had been involved back in the early days of VRML, I
probably would have been at the frontlines of the disputes about its
"vision" :) ... However, I think we've learned a lot about what it takes to
do large-scale immersive shared environments, and technology has grown a lot
since those early days of VRML, and I think some of these visions are a bit
more attainable and realistic now. I'm afraid that the bad experiences of
VRML are almost making people too cautious and pessimistic in this area.

But yeah, I should probably hold my tongue a bit more whenever new hype
floats around for the next-big-virtual-world-thing. I do still stand by the
criteria I listed in the first post, though, and really hope to see a
standard emerge that can support those kinds of features.

Ken

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard at hiwaay.net>
To: "'VOS Discussion'" <vos-d at interreality.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [vos-d] Flux Worlds Server Announcement

> >First of all I should mention that I don't speak for VOS/Interreality
3D --
>
> >which you seem to be assuming I do. I'm just an enthusiast following
their
> >progress and hoping to contribute a bit.
>
> I've lurked on the list for a few years now.  There are lots of projects
but
> this one has staying power based on the core of people building it.  That
I
> support.  I am a VRML content builder among other things, but I support
> real-time 3D in general.
>
> >I know what *I* want the metaverse
> >to be, and I'm especially annoyed at the Lindens for attempting to
> >appropriate the term and therefore am a bit sensitive to new press
releases
> >making hype about the "metaverse." And that's basically it.
>
> That will only frustrate.  The press, the Lindens, their investors, all
will
> work hard to create a patina of invention and legitimacy up to and
including
> rewriting history.  That is how the web was won.  Can you imagine how
> irritating it was for the SGML hypertext community to read that Tim
> Berners-Lee had *invented* hypertext and THE hypertext markup language?
The
> history wasn't that well known so it worked at scale.  Hype works.
> Investors expect it.  The way to fight that is to correct the press, but
> don't fight over terms like *metaverse*.  It is already a hype term that
has
> very little meaning.
>
> What is a 'metaverse'?
>
> We have the same problems with 'virtual reality'.  It is just a genre of
> real-time 3D.   VOS has yet to find a genre that is easily summarized.
That
> might be good because it continues to fly under the radar.  About the
worst
> thing that can happen is to have the press locusts descend on it before it
> is ready.  I can't count the number of web projects gone South that I've
> seen because the fringes decided it needed a big press boost or more cred
> than it had earned.  Of such is a bubble made.
>
> The VRMLers are careful to acknowledge VRML's roots in practical
commercial
> products, eg, SGI Open Inventor.  As a result, when a blogger or press
> release talks about how VRML was created on the web, but is not a
practical
> product, it is easy to point to the evolution from the SGI product line
and
> correct that.  One thing the press really hates is to have their
credibility
> ripped from them with factual reporting.
>
> >I do think -- if they do it right -- Flux Worlds will be a useful product
> >and an important step in open-standard virtual-worlds. But I maintain
that
> >it's an evolutionary step, not a revolutionary one -- 
>
> There are revolutions of technology and revolutions of scale and market.
> HTML was not a revolution.  It was a design that was decades old.  The
> markup design was essentially the work of Truly Donovan, not Tim or Dan.
> The US Army had a DTD-less stylesheet driven markup hypertext browser
years
> before XML.  HTTP is even less of a revolution.  In combination, they
caused
> a scaling effect that was a market revolution.   A generation of
> not-very-adept programmers picked it up and did cool things with it, but
the
> generation that took it to the next level was already very adept and
mostly
> 40-somethings.  The press didn't find that very good reading.  Fifteen
years
> later, none of it matters, but don't underrate the power of the press to
> fuel a revolution in market where there was no revolution in technology.
>
> > and it's no reason >not to aim farther ahead, or to abandon all
alternate
> > paths.
>
> I agree and those paths are also no reason to slag the sincere and working
> efforts of the VRMLers to get the next piece of their puzzle in place
> because of the term 'metaverse'.  The press made the term popular, not the
> technologists.  You don't own it.  The Lindens don't.  Parisi doesn't.
> Everyone will use it as they see fit.  It may even die fast because it is
a
> hype term subject to dissolution because it has no insolvent core meaning.
>
> >Also, as far >as I've seen, VOS isn't making lots of "publicity" or
> >"preannouncements" -- 
> >Peter, Reed et al have been quietly working away for a few years trying
to
> >get a good base technology working from the ground up. And they *do* have
> >running code.
>
> I know.  I keep track.  I am waiting to see what this emerges as because
so
> far, it is *geekSpeakBound* and while that is good for the programmers, it
> won't mean a thing to the content developers or the market.  I'm waiting
for
> that synergy when hot content and new technology merge.   I warn you
though,
> technology is largely invisible.  If VOS creates yetAnotherSocialSpace, it
> is an also ran.  Customers are never wowed by how neat your classes are.
>
> >So I'm really not sure where a lot of your comments are coming from.
>
> 25+ years of experience.   Don't get hung up on the terms or claims to
> primacy as if this project were THE Metaverse.  That will just earn these
> guys enemies where they don't earn them themselves and critics where it
> isn't in need of critique.  So far, VOS is a small personal project with a
> mail list and some running code, but nothing yet to show that will impress
> the market.
>
> I am impressed by the staying power of the core contributors.  I've
learned
> that is the single most important quality to look for when tracking
> different projects competing in an emerging market.  The Lindens have it
and
> that is why they are ahead of everyone in mindshare.  The VRMLers have it
> and that is why they are still standing post-dot.bomb blowout.   They
> eviscerated themselves internally with fights over "the vision" with
exactly
> the kinds of posts people make when they get jealous or feel left out.   A
> vision is good, but core community focus on the work at hand is what will
> get you to the goal.  Don't lose it over *words*.  Don't bother to care.
>
> In entertainment, if someone else releases a new movie, album, whatever
and
> it gets a lot of attention, the best thing is to send congratulations,
best
> wishes, hope to see you on the road, then get back to the next session.
The
> worst thing to do is to be on record making cutting remarks unless you are
> correcting factual errors.   I root for the Lindens because their success
> makes a real-time 3D market bigger and more credible. I build with VRML
> because ten years later, my content still runs on tools built last week.
It
> will not run at SL and ten years from now, SL content may not run at all
> anywhere.  That is their next job and they are probably savvy enough to
know
> that.
>
> len
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vos-d mailing list
> vos-d at interreality.org
> http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
>